Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Ravi Bharadwaj — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Ravi Bharadwaj — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal in case any occasion arises after completion of the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015; the appeal itself is rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the ground that the Assessing Officer's framing of a protective assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was premature while proceedings under the Black Money Act were still underway. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the expression used by the Tribunal (“not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned CIT(A)”), the Court grants the Revenue the liberty prayed for — to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal in case any occasion arises after completion of the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015 — while rejecting the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court hardly finds any substance in the contention; in light of the Tribunal's observation that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material, the Court holds that existence or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact which does not call for interference.

Key takeaways

The pending application (CM APPL. 46328/2026) is disposed of.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Dinesh Mehta & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.) — ITA 567/2026, decided 22.07.2026: Rejects the Revenue's appeal against the order dated 21.01.2026 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-'A', New Delhi (AY 2012-13), by which the Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeals qua AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 on the view that framing of protective assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961 was premature as proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 — pertaining to different assessment years — were still underway. Holds that the Tribunal's finding that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material is a finding of fact which does not call for interference. However, noting the Tribunal's recorded observation that it was “not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned CIT(A)”, grants the Revenue liberty to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal should any occasion arise after completion of the Black Money Act, 2015 proceedings; pending application disposed of.

$~136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ITA 567/2026 & CM APPL. 46328/2026

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kr., JSC & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSC.

versus

RAVI BHARADWAJ .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R

% 22.07.2026

Mr Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, contended that the Tribunal order dated 21.01.2026 for assessment year 2012-13 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-‘A’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) has erred in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by observing that the Assessing Officer’s approach in framing a protective assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 was premature, as the proceedings under the Black Money Act were still underway.

Learned counsel argued that the proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „Black Money Act, 2015‟) pertained to different assessment years and therefore, the appeal of Revenue qua the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 could

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:18:43

not have been dismissed, as the assessments were protective in nature.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we hardly find any substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. More particularly, in light of the observation made by the Tribunal that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material. Existence of or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact, which does not call for interference.

At this juncture, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, invited Court’s attention towards the observation made by the Tribunal in para no. 16 of the impugned order, wherein it has recorded- “at this stage, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned CIT(A)” and prayed that atleast this liberty be granted to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal that in case any occasion so arises after the completion of the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015, they may do so.

In view of the expression used by the Tribunal as noted above, we grant the liberty as prayed, while rejecting the appeal.

The pending application is disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

JULY 22, 2026 /nk

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:18:43